DATE OF DISPOSAL: 19.01.2023.
Sri P.Surya Rao, President:
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant is the practicing lawyer doing his practice at District Courts of Ganjam at Berhampur and eking out his livelihood by attending the clients and the courts for 10 hours a day. On 08.11.2018 the complainant has developed pain in the lumber region for which reasons he has visited the above O.P. having his hospital situated at Konark Nursing Home at Berhampur. But surprisingly without getting the Radio-graphical tests (including MRI) the staff of the O.P. had subjected him under treatment like putting an orthodox traction which lead him with multiple complications problems for which reasons of such treatment complainant was subjected to nearly to the stage of comatose and his lower limbs became paralytic and he was then on 13.11.2018 compelled to remove to “Sum Hospital, Bhubaneswar” and got admitted therein and subjected to treatment till dt.18.11.2018 as such spent an amount of rupees one lakh in the process. As a matter of fact the doctors of the Sum Hospital are now insisting for surgical treatment to his vertebral bones and nerves which were damaged due to mal medical treatment made at the instance, of the above OP, to which reasons of the latches the complainant has got issued a legal notice on 17.12.2018 stating that he is mindful to attract the legal procedure for medical mal practice/negligence and for the payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.10.000/- and for that, the O.P. have evasively replied and stating that he is nothing to do with the mal practices has no legs to stand on its own and then complainant has attracted this proceeding before the Hon’ble Commission to have his relieves as prayed hereunder. For the said negligence, meted out to complainant and the loss due to wrongful acts of O.P. is causing is to be estimated and to make good the same in terms of compensation for the losses sustained by at the time of disposal of this complaint the O.P. is liable to pay the loss and for physical and mental harassment of Rs.10,00,000/- , compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,00.000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Admitting the C.C. this Commission has issued notice to the Opposite Party and duly acknowledging the same.
4. The O.P. appeared through his advocate and filed written version. It is stated that all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition are not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations which are not strictly admitted herein are deemed to have been denied by the above O.P. This Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try over this case of the complainant and for that the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complaint petition is barred by time and is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made at para-1 of the complaint petition is not to the knowledge of this O.P. and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The allegations made at para-2 of the complaint petition is not totally correct rather it is true that the complainant visited the hospital of the O.P. on 08.11.2018 after a telephone call from the side of the complainant stating severe pain in his lumbar region and with two attendants lifting him came to the hospital of the O.P. where the O.P. attended him immediately and immediate treatment like traction was given with advise of X-ray etc. Also the O.P. after seeing clinically, noticed the complainant had neurological deficit in his foot to which the complainant was advised further test and surgery if required but surprisingly and cunningly the complainant left the hospital of the O.P. stating he has relieved a lot from the pain and taking rest and treatment at home will be all right. Further the allegations that the treatment like putting traction is an Orthodox treatment which lead to the complainant with multiple complications/problems like nearly subjected to the stage of comatose and the lower limbs became paralytic is a fake allegation without any findings of any other authority like specialist, hospital or any other body rather traction treatment for immediate pain relief being done and followed by most of the orthopadician surgeons. The allegations made at para-3 of the complaint petition is only to extort money from the O.P. and no where the complainant has filed a paper to show negligent treatment and malpractice has been done by the O.P. which lead the complainant to the complications which is only his sayings and allegations without any basis like pointed out by any specialists or authority and thus such allegations are vague one simply to be extradited. The allegations made at para-4 of the complaint petition has no merit in such allegations and should be rejected forthwith. Further the O.P. submits there was no deficiency in service or negligence committed by him and any deterioration or wrong developed in the health of the complainant might be due to the own negligence of the complainant or some wrong treatment elsewhere. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant being devoid of any merit with costs in the best interests of justice.
5. On the date of hearing of consumer complaint learned counsel for the parties were present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. This Commission by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Joal Mathew versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 held :- A medical practitioner was not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.
A Medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standard of reasonable competent practitioner in his field.
A doctor can be held guilty of medical negligence only where his conduct false short below that of the standard of a reasonably competent doctor in his field so much so that his conduct might be deserving of censure or inexcusable.
This Commission has relied upon another citation passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in Pushkar Dutt versus Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and Anr 2009 (4) CPR 269 such as:-“Allegation of medical negligence has to be proved by complainant by adducing expert evidence”. The complainant has not filed any expert opinion in this case. Hence we do not find merit in the case.
In the result we dismissed the case. No costs.
A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information and copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet. After compliance the case record be consigned to record room.
The order is pronounced on 19th January 2023 in open Commission.
